Unethical for using animals in an innatural and cruel way, I think animal testing is very dangerous for humans. With animal testing the pharmaceutical factory can ask more public money saying that they have to pay for the animals they have (animal experimentation is expensive!). And using animals the researchers can select the species of animals on the basis of the results they want obtain. Ex. some animals die with diossine, other don't. And when their drugs on the market will begin to kill people or to cause horrible diseases and reactions, the researchers will say that with animals the result was different, so it's not their fault. They want be paid! They don't care about human or animal welfare, rights etc. They are horrible people.

I found very elucidative a discussion on the speakerscorner trust org between Tom Holder founder of Speaking for Research, and Michelle Thew chief Executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). Holder tries to hide the reality and he denies that animals have equal moral status to humans. He compares animals used for research to animals used for food: that's a crazy comparison. http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/6342 ... efensible/

Now I want copy some parts of the reply by Michelle Thew: " It is often argued that humans are more important than animals. Even assuming that was provable by objective criteria, since when did greater perceived value justify causing pain to the less valuable? We don'™t allow brain surgeons or political leaders, for their own benefit, to cause physical pain to prisoners or the unemployed or anyone else society perceives (wrongly) to be of less value. 'People are more intelligent than animals' you may say. Well, not always; other animals, such as nonhuman primates, can be more intelligent than people with dementia or other brain injury. More importantly, relative intelligence is ethically irrelevant. As a society, we quite rightly protect people of very low intelligence from exploitation. The truth is that we experiment on animals not because it is ethically justifiable but because we have the power to subjugate them. Humankind really should have moved on from 'might is right'™ as a guide to behaviour."The new EU law contemplates inescapable electric shocks (to induce helplessness), complete isolation for prolonged periods of social species like dogs or primates, forced swimming or exercise tests to exhaustion, destruction of animals’ immune system - and so much more.

Tom says that “humans’ moral status is what allows us to care for the suffering of other species”. Precisely. So why abuse moral authority by deliberately causing suffering?"..."Alternatives? We have numerous examples of their not being used, despite the law. The result: thousands of scientifically unnecessary experiments."..."It is high time society caught up. Surely humankind should be able to do better than this dreadful catalogue of deliberately-inflicted suffering."

Unethical for using animals in an innatural and cruel way, I think animal testing is very dangerous for humans. With animal testing the pharmaceutical factory can ask more public money saying that they have to pay for the animals they have (animal experimentation is expensive!). And using animals the researchers can select the species of animals on the basis of the results they want obtain. Ex. some animals die with diossine, other don't. And when their drugs on the market will begin to kill people or to cause horrible diseases and reactions, the researchers will say that with animals the result was different, so it's not their fault. They want be paid! They don't care about human or animal welfare, rights etc. They are horrible people.

The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities

Several significant errors are evident which makes the view of this person very questionable.

Thalidomide was tested prior to use, but the testing for the primary use was not for pregnant women. The marketing for women with morning sickness was unsupported by testing. In fact, the issue was not seen in the US where the USDA required such testing prior to use which was ot the case with the European regulations ate the time. The regulations in Europe were changed to require more testing to prevent such instances. Thus, the issue was not with animal model testing, but the lack of such testing.

AbstractThe first paper describing the pharmacological actions of thalidomide was published in 1956. The drug, then designated as K17, was thought to have sedative effects superior to those of comparator drugs and was thought to be virtually nontoxic. Only 2 years after thalidomide's launch as Contergan in Germany, it's alleged lack of toxicity came into question, with reports of the drug causing numerous side effects. Shortly thereafter, thalidomide was connected with an epidemic of horrific deformities in children whose mothers had taken the drug during pregnancy. This disaster brought on by thalidomide's teratogenic effects was responsible for the institution of some regulatory bodies, such as the United Kingdom's Committee on the Safety of Drugs, and for the strengthening of others, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. An objective examination of published papers and contemporary accounts confirms that the preclinical tests on thalidomide were superficial, and there is no doubt that it was never administered to pregnant animals prior to its use in patients. Within a short time after its withdrawal from the market due to its suspected association with fetal abnormalities, the drug was shown to produce fetal toxicity in laboratory animals. Had there been more extensive testing on laboratory animals before the drug was launched, the disaster could have been avoided. (c) 2002 Prous Science. All rights reserved.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I found very elucidative a discussion on the speakerscorner trust org between Tom Holder founder of Speaking for Research, and Michelle Thew chief Executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). Holder tries to hide the reality and he denies that animals have equal moral status to humans. He compares animals used for research to animals used for food: that's a crazy comparison. http://www.speakerscornertrust.org/6342 ... efensible/

Why would comparison to using animals for food and for medical models be a "crazy comparison" exactly? Both are uses of animals for human benefit. Both are uses that eventually result in the death of animals in order for humans to continue living. It would seem the comparion is valid. Just making a claim of it being "crazy" without some reasoning presented to support the conclusion just does not make it so.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Now I want copy some parts of the reply by Michelle Thew: " It is often argued that humans are more important than animals. Even assuming that was provable by objective criteria, since when did greater perceived value justify causing pain to the less valuable? We don'™t allow brain surgeons or political leaders, for their own benefit, to cause physical pain to prisoners or the unemployed or anyone else society perceives (wrongly) to be of less value. 'People are more intelligent than animals' you may say. Well, not always; other animals, such as nonhuman primates, can be more intelligent than people with dementia or other brain injury. More importantly, relative intelligence is ethically irrelevant. As a society, we quite rightly protect people of very low intelligence from exploitation. The truth is that we experiment on animals not because it is ethically justifiable but because we have the power to subjugate them. Humankind really should have moved on from 'might is right'™ as a guide to behaviour."The new EU law contemplates inescapable electric shocks (to induce helplessness), complete isolation for prolonged periods of social species like dogs or primates, forced swimming or exercise tests to exhaustion, destruction of animals’ immune system - and so much more.

Tom says that “humans’ moral status is what allows us to care for the suffering of other species”. Precisely. So why abuse moral authority by deliberately causing suffering?"..."Alternatives? We have numerous examples of their not being used, despite the law. The result: thousands of scientifically unnecessary experiments."..."It is high time society caught up. Surely humankind should be able to do better than this dreadful catalogue of deliberately-inflicted suffering."

Comparing the maximum end of the spectrum of one species to the minimum end of the spectrum of another to make the case of equality is a flawed approach because it is incorrect to skew the data so widely.

The fact is humans have extended rights to themselves, which do not include other species. Humans have extended protections for some other species, but not rights. Humans only have the rights humans can defend, which is why human rights are still not universal, because some humans cannot or will not defend those rights for humans in certain areas.

On the subject of necessity of the experiments, that is as accurate as the first example of Thalidomide, which is false. There are some tests which can be performed without animal models, but the really important ones still cannot.

The critical point missed in this whole discussion about drug tests and failures which cause drugs to be removed from the market is that all drugs are tested on humans in clinical trials before the release. That means the problems have to be evident due to interactions or difference not seen in the clinical trials. This is because people are also different from each other. Because of this difference none of the testing will be perfect, but the more testing the less the chance of a significant problem.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Thalidomide: There is, however, a major and tragic irony in blaming insufficient animal testing for the disaster: more animal testing would not have prevented the release of thalidomide, since very few species suffer birth defects or other adverse effects in response to the drug. The Office of Health Economics concluded that: “It is unlikely that specific tests in pregnant animals would have given the necessary warning: the right species would probably never have been used.” http://www.safermedicines.org/pletters/ ... ?year=2012

Although the drug was marketed in 1957, reproductive studies on thalidomide in animals were not started until 1961, after the drug's effects on human fetuses had begun to be suspected (MacBride, 1961 and Lenz, 1961, 1962). Initial studies on rats and mice revealed some reproductive abnormalities, notably reduction in litter size due to resorption of fetuses; however, only when the compound was tested in the New Zealand white rabbit did abnormalities similar to those noticed in human babies occur. Studies on monkeys revealed that they were almost as sensitive as humans to the deformative effects of the drug.http://caat.jhsph.edu/publications/anim ... pter3.html

In 1957, soon after launching Contergan (thalidomide) in West Germany, came reports of peripheral neuritis that revealed thalidomide's toxic effects on the nervous system of the user. (5) This is a serious illness which may occur anywhere in the body. For example, it may begin with a prickly feeling in the toes, followed by a sensation of numbness and cold. The numbness spreads often above the ankles, and eventually is followed by severe muscular cramps, weakness of limbs, and a lack of co-ordination. Some of these symptoms improve or disappear when the cause is removed, but much of the damage is irreversible. (6)

Peripheral neuritis does not itself point to reproductive damage, but many scientists would take such an assault on the nervous system as grounds for general suspicion. (7) One such scientist, McCredie reported that the limbs of children with thalidomide malformations show changes analogous to those which can occur in the adult as a consequence of pathological alterations to peripheral nerves. (8) Such a suspicion was suggestive enough to cause Dr Frances Kelsey, the Medical Officer of the Food and Drug Administration, to reject the drug firm's application to market Kevadon (thalidomide) in the United States, because among other reasons, she wasn't satisfied that the drug would be safe to take during pregnancy. Her handwritten note on the original memorandum reads: "This was based on peripheral neuritis symptoms in adults." (9)

The original animal tests by Chemie Grünenthal did not show indications of this unexpected and serious side-effect. (10) Furthermore, in several European countries, including England and Sweden, the licensees of thalidomide carried out their own animal tests, independently from the German firm, and came to the same results as Chemie Grünenthal. (11) If the tests had predicted peripheral neuritis and if the firms acted upon the results in a responsible manner, the drug would not have been released in the first place and a major disaster would have been avoided.

Unfortunately this wasn't the case: "an estimated 10,000 children-but probably many more-born throughout the world as phocomelics, deformed, some with fin-like hands grown directly on the shoulders; with stunted or missing limbs; deformed eyes and ears; ingrown genitals; absence of a lung; a great many of them still-born or dying shortly after birth; parents under shock, mothers gone insane, some driven to infanticide." (12) (Hans Ruesch, medical historian.)

And to illustrate just how criminally neglectful the firms behaved, consider the fact that despite thousands of cases of peripheral neuritis and that a growing number of cases of deformities were being reported the drug firms resisted moves to withdrawal their products. Besides, their resumed animal tests could not duplicate the deformities, so they saw no reason to remove the drug. Only until the evidence was overwhelming did Chemie Grünenthal finally take Contergan off the market. (13) Also, in other countries around the world including Brazil, Italy, Japan, Sweden and Canada drugs containing thalidomide were not withdrawn till a year or longer after Grünenthal's withdrawal of the drug. (14)

As a consequence to the thalidomide tragedy there has been a marked upsurge in the number of animals used in testing of new drugs. Also drugs are now specifically tested on pregnant animals to supposedly safeguard against possible teratogenic effects on the human foetus. Vivisector's claim that if such tests were carried out prior to thalidomide's release, birth deformities in humans would have been discovered. This is of course sheer nonsense. "In pregnant animals, differences in the physiological structure, function and biochemistry of the placenta aggravate the usual differences in metabolism, excretion, distribution and absorption that exist between species and make reliable predictions impossible." (15) (Dr Robert Sharpe, former senior research chemist.)

In fact when the link between human foetal abnormalities and thalidomide was established (through clinical observation), the world-wide explosion of animal testing, using a large range of species, proved very difficult to duplicate the abnormalities. (16) Writing in his book Drugs as Teratogens, J.L. Schardein observes: "In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, eleven breeds of rabbit, two breeds of dogs, three strains of hamsters, eight species of primates and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally." (17) Eventually after administrating high doses of thalidomide to certain species of rabbit (New Zealand White) and primates could similar abnormalities be found. However researchers pointed out that malformations, like cancer, could occur when practically any substance, including sugar and salt, be given in excessive doses. (16)

All this just reaffirms what many doctors and scientists have been warning for a number of decades-animal experimentation misleads science and any similarity to the human situation is merely a coincidence and cannot be verified until the experiment is repeated on humans. Experimenting on animals is like playing roulette. (18) http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/res ... alid2.html

German-based Gruenenthal has issued its first apology in 50 years, but said the drug's possible side-effects "could not be detected" before it was marketed.Mr Stock said the company regretted that the potential for thalidomide to affect the development of foetuses "could not be detected by the tests that we and others carried out before it was marketed.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19448046

Martin Johnson, director of the Thalidomide Trust, told the BBC that the news that the manufacturers were starting to acknowledge responsibility was welcome but they were still trying to perpetuate the myth that no-one could have known of the harm the drug could cause when there was, he said, much evidence that they did know.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19443910

[quote="Wayne Stollings The fact is humans have extended rights to themselves, which do not include other species. Humans have extended protections for some other species, but not rights. Humans only have the rights humans can defend, which is why human rights are still not universal, because some humans cannot or will not defend those rights for humans in certain areas. [/quote]

So are you saying that humans have rights only when they are able to make their rights respected? No I think someone have rights whether or not he is able to make his rights respected. And whether or not others recognises his rights.The rights are not written in the law and/or in the uses of a society.Cruel societies nowadays and in the past don't recognise neither human rights. Human rights aren't manmade.Human and animal rights are above the cultures, the uses, the religions, the laws etc. of a community.Human and animal rights are universal: they come from nature law.

And nature law says that we have the right to use animals to eat, like they do among them. But we have no right to use the animals or kill them for our knowledge or health.This is my opinion. And it's difficult to explain why we should have a conscience, a moral responsibility forbidding us to damage the others for our benefits.

Thalidomide: There is, however, a major and tragic irony in blaming insufficient animal testing for the disaster: more animal testing would not have prevented the release of thalidomide, since very few species suffer birth defects or other adverse effects in response to the drug. The Office of Health Economics concluded that: “It is unlikely that specific tests in pregnant animals would have given the necessary warning: the right species would probably never have been used.” http://www.safermedicines.org/pletters/ ... ?year=2012

Would probably have not used the right species? Did they use a fortune teller to make this dteremination?

Quote:

Although the drug was marketed in 1957, reproductive studies on thalidomide in animals were not started until 1961, after the drug's effects on human fetuses had begun to be suspected (MacBride, 1961 and Lenz, 1961, 1962). Initial studies on rats and mice revealed some reproductive abnormalities, notably reduction in litter size due to resorption of fetuses; however, only when the compound was tested in the New Zealand white rabbit did abnormalities similar to those noticed in human babies occur. Studies on monkeys revealed that they were almost as sensitive as humans to the deformative effects of the drug.http://caat.jhsph.edu/publications/anim ... pter3.html

The important part which was not quoted ....

Fetal malformations caused by the use of the drug thalidomide constitute one of the most tragic chapters in modern pharmacology. Over the past decade, many individuals and organizations have used this episode to illustrate the inadequacy of animal testing, pointing out that extensive testing in animals did not reveal the teratogenic potential of the drug in human beings. However, as Rowan revealed in 1984, this claim is erroneous. "The fact is that thalidomide was not adequately tested, and after the tragedy, drug registration authorities around the world immediately increased their animal-testing requirements" (Rowan, 1984).

Although the drug was marketed in 1957, reproductive studies on thalidomide in animals were not started until 1961, after the drug's effects on human fetuses had begun to be suspected (MacBride, 1961 and Lenz, 1961, 1962). Initial studies on rats and mice revealed some reproductive abnormalities, notably reduction in litter size due to resorption of fetuses; however, only when the compound was tested in the New Zealand white rabbit did abnormalities similar to those noticed in human babies occur. Studies on monkeys revealed that they were almost as sensitive as humans to the deformative effects of the drug.

Rowan traces the confusion about thalidomide to the publication of Richard Ryder's book, Victims of Science (Ryder, 1975), noting that Ryder may have been misled by the claims of the Turkish scientist Aygun that he had evidence of the reproductive toxicity of thalidomide in tissue culture. This allegation has never been substantiated. The Insight Team of The Sunday Times of London revealed (Suffer the Children, 1979) that neither the German makers of the drug nor the British distributors performed any type of premarket teratogenic testing on animals, although such tests were being performed at that time on other sedative drugs such as Miltown and Librium. If anything, the story of thalidomide exhibits the need for tight regulation and extensive testing of new drugs and chemicals. When the German manufacturer of the drug was asked in 1961, four years after the drug went on the market, "when thalidomide is given to women patients, does it cross the placenta" the company's answer was "not known." The answer was not known because the necessary tests had not been performed.

Quote:

In 1957, soon after launching Contergan (thalidomide) in West Germany, came reports of peripheral neuritis that revealed thalidomide's toxic effects on the nervous system of the user. (5) This is a serious illness which may occur anywhere in the body. For example, it may begin with a prickly feeling in the toes, followed by a sensation of numbness and cold. The numbness spreads often above the ankles, and eventually is followed by severe muscular cramps, weakness of limbs, and a lack of co-ordination. Some of these symptoms improve or disappear when the cause is removed, but much of the damage is irreversible. (6)

<snip>

All this just reaffirms what many doctors and scientists have been warning for a number of decades-animal experimentation misleads science and any similarity to the human situation is merely a coincidence and cannot be verified until the experiment is repeated on humans. Experimenting on animals is like playing roulette. (18) http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/res ... alid2.html

What amounts to a blog? Really?

Quote:

German-based Gruenenthal has issued its first apology in 50 years, but said the drug's possible side-effects "could not be detected" before it was marketed.Mr Stock said the company regretted that the potential for thalidomide to affect the development of foetuses "could not be detected by the tests that we and others carried out before it was marketed.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19448046

The effects could not have been detected because they never looked for them, which makes the statement both true and misleading.

Quote:

Martin Johnson, director of the Thalidomide Trust, told the BBC that the news that the manufacturers were starting to acknowledge responsibility was welcome but they were still trying to perpetuate the myth that no-one could have known of the harm the drug could cause when there was, he said, much evidence that they did know.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19443910

You just posted a reference that they could not have known? The "shotgun" approach?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The fact is humans have extended rights to themselves, which do not include other species. Humans have extended protections for some other species, but not rights. Humans only have the rights humans can defend, which is why human rights are still not universal, because some humans cannot or will not defend those rights for humans in certain areas.

So are you saying that humans have rights only when they are able to make their rights respected?

Yes, that is the case with rights and why there were not rights here until humans granted them to themselves.

Quote:

No I think someone have rights whether or not he is able to make his rights respected. And whether or not others recognises his rights.

How can you claim a right no other recognizes and you cannot defend? It is at best an opinion at that point.

Quote:

The rights are not written in the law and/or in the uses of a society.

Yes, they are. They are written into the Constitution and laws of the nations who provide rights to their citizens. The nations which so not have such rights written do not provided them for their citizens and thus those citizens do not have those rights.

Of course they are. Who else makes them and protects them? Not nature as there are no rights there other than survival of the strongest.

Quote:

Human and animal rights are above the cultures, the uses, the religions, the laws etc. of a community.

No, that is a nice myth, but it does not bear true under examination.

Quote:

Human and animal rights are universal: they come from nature law.

Nature has no law other than eat and be eaten.

Quote:

And nature law says that we have the right to use animals to eat, like they do among them.

Correct.

Quote:

But we have no right to use the animals or kill them for our knowledge or health.This is my opinion. And it's difficult to explain why we should have a conscience, a moral responsibility forbidding us to damage the others for our benefits.

It is difficult to explain because it is not logical but merely an emotional position that you like. It is not the case because nature allows any animal to do anything to another animal if that animal has the ability to do so. Be it killing, mating, wounding, playing, or any combination of things.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The effects could not have been detected because they wanted hide them for economical reason.I want say that the pharmaceutical industry can tell what it want about the results from animal testing. They can say we couldn't know because the animals gave different reactions. But they are conscious of that so they are totally guilty for the consequences.They can say we didn't that specific test. Or we tested on the wrong animals... and so...

The rights exists but aren't recognised in lots of cases: gay rights, women rights, children rights, disabled rights, ethnic minority rights, animal rights and so on.So you think the people useless for the society, people of which nobody care have no rights, because nobody has a practical interests in make their rights respected.When the rights are not respected, not recognised in a society we should fight to make those rights respected by everyone.

I think I have your same right to the research of the happiness although in the Italian Constitution it's not written.And I think I would have the same rights of everyone if I was a dregs, outcast of the society and with nobody caring about me.

"It is not the case because nature allows any animal to do anything to another animal if that animal has the ability to do so. Be it killing, mating, wounding, playing, or any combination of things.So do you think nobody should fight for the respect of the rights of others? We should be more egotistical?"Everyone, among humans too, can go to steal, to kill, to rape, to enslave, to hurt, to abuse, to sodomize, etc.But it doesn't mean he has the natural right to do so.There are some principle, morals, values that we should feel inside us.These morals don't came from religions, cultures, politics, laws.Animals too have their ethics, their codes they feels they have to follow.There should be like an instinct inside everyone telling what is right and what is wrong.This is linked to the talent to feel empathy, compassion, understanding.

The effects could not have been detected because they wanted hide them for economical reason.I want say that the pharmaceutical industry can tell what it want about the results from animal testing. They can say we couldn't know because the animals gave different reactions. But they are conscious of that so they are totally guilty for the consequences.They can say we didn't that specific test. Or we tested on the wrong animals... and so...

That is what some of the blog sources wish to imply, but it is not what the research papers say of Thalidomide. As for any medical testing the final stage is a series of clinical trials in humans, so it is unlikely there could be much manipulation of the type you claim. Even if there was the liability for damages is significant so it would be beyond stupid to try something such as what you have implied.

And until they are recognised and protected they do not exist. It is really that simple as even a law which is not and cannot be enforced does not actually exist as a result.

Quote:

So you think the people useless for the society, people of which nobody care have no rights, because nobody has a practical interests in make their rights respected.

NO person, useless or otherwise have rights until society takes an interest, creates the rights, and the means by which they are protected. An unprotected right is merely a suggestion.

Quote:

When the rights are not respected, not recognised in a society we should fight to make those rights respected by everyone.

You can, that is how rights are created.

Quote:

I think I have your same right to the research of the happiness although in the Italian Constitution it's not written.

That may be, but those in say North Korea, do not.

Quote:

And I think I would have the same rights of everyone if I was a dregs, outcast of the society and with nobody caring about me.

If and only if society had granted the rights to everyone. In some cases the rights were granted to only a portion of the society, such as those of a certain sex, racial background, religion, or age.

Quote:

"It is not the case because nature allows any animal to do anything to another animal if that animal has the ability to do so. Be it killing, mating, wounding, playing, or any combination of things.So do you think nobody should fight for the respect of the rights of others? We should be more egotistical?"Everyone, among humans too, can go to steal, to kill, to rape, to enslave, to hurt, to abuse, to sodomize, etc.But it doesn't mean he has the natural right to do so.

Of course it does, but the human society created real rights which the society defends and those rights preclude the individual from a negative impact on the rights of others by a lesser right of that individual. This is where the example comes in of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". This means when your rights impact my rights, the greater right takes priority. Thus, protecting my nose form damage takes priority over your swinging of your fist.

Quote:

There are some principle, morals, values that we should feel inside us.

But there are some who do not feel these things even when they are expalined to them.

Quote:

These morals don't came from religions, cultures, politics, laws.

Possibly and possibly not. It can trun into a discussion of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Quote:

Animals too have their ethics, their codes they feels they have to follow.

No, they generally have the eat or be eaten code of ethics.

Quote:

There should be like an instinct inside everyone telling what is right and what is wrong.

If right and wrong were universal that would be expected, but since there is no such instinct there is no universal right or wrong.

Quote:

This is linked to the talent to feel empathy, compassion, understanding.

And there are people who do not have such feelings much less the majority of the animal kingdom.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I have known for quite some time what vivisection, animal testing, and animal research are. I have not known it for as long as some of the footage in your videos have been around because some of the footage may be as old as I am. Some of the color video is some three decades old and the black and white may date back another two decades or more.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The IACUC must assure that all aspects of the animal study proposal (ASP) that may cause more than transient pain and/or distress are addressed; alternatives6 to painful or distressful procedures are considered; and that methods, anesthetics and analgesics to minimize or eliminate pain and distress are included when these methods do not interfere with the research objectives; and that humane end points have been established for all situations where more than transient pain and distress can not be avoided or eliminated. Whenever possible, death or severe pain and distress should be avoided as end points. A written scientific justification is required to be included in the ASP for any more than transient painful or distressful procedure that cannot be relieved or minimized.

The obligation to reduce pain and distress does not end with the review of the ASP. It is the responsibility of the animal care staff, the research staff, veterinarians and the IACUC, to continue to monitor animals for pain, distress, illness, morbidity or mortality during the course of the research study.

If unexpected pain or distress occurs, and is more than an isolated incident, the PI must submit an amendment delineating the unexpected problem and stating their proposed resolution to the issue (e.g. administration of analgesics, lowering the dose of a drug that was administered, etc.). Alternatively, the PI could justify the need for unrelieved pain or distress in the amendment, or in the case of regulated species as a Column E Justification.

If it is necessary to make changes in the ASP procedures, the PI must submit an amendment to the IACUC and receive approval prior to instituting the modification. For example, if unexpected pain or distress was noted following treatment with a specific dose of an experimental agent, the PI must submit an amendment delineating the unexpected problem and stating their proposed resolution to the issue (e.g. administration of analgesics, lowering the dose administered, etc.). Alternatively, the PI could justify the need for unrelieved pain or distress in the amendment, or in the case of regulated species as a Column E Justification.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Don't you know that to teste the anesthetics and analgesics animals have to suffer?

This link show you a ten years ago scandal: organs transplantations from pigs to monkeys.Monkeys dying weeks later with their hand on their breast where there was a pig heart.http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm

Are tested or WERE tested? The majority of the smoke related research was performed a few decades ago.

Quote:

Don't you know that to teste the anesthetics and analgesics animals have to suffer?

Yes, for both the treatment of animals AND humans. How do they develop drugs to treat animals?

Quote:

This link show you a ten years ago scandal: organs transplantations from pigs to monkeys.Monkeys dying weeks later with their hand on their breast where there was a pig heart.http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm

A scandal? Perhaps you would volunteer to develop immunosuppressors to try to improve on the ability for transplants.

Yes, the attempt to make a science discussion a political discussion because the science does not support the beliefs of some. That is really "new" almost as "new" as misrepresentation to do the same thing. Sorry, but your sources give but one side and a biased view as well.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein